Okay, I'm not concerned with cfincludes and those related issues. I am concerned with
the handling of multiple requests on the index or "fusebox" page (i.e.) a single page.
For example say I have 1,000 users on my site. If they are all accessing index.cfm as
opposed to 20 to 30 different .cfm pages. How does this affect caching and does it
produce any other problems.
Thank you,
Don Sparks
not quite at the 32nd chamber of fusebox.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Nelson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2000 3:23 PM
Subject: Re: fusebox style: too much disk access?
> Don't be confused by what Nat is saying, a single "fuseaction" in a
> Fusebox application may only hit 5-8 files. It's really not that big a
> deal.
>
> Steve
>
> Nat Papovich wrote:
> >
> > A simple test of included files suggests that CF's internal file access
> > functions were pratically built with a cfinclude-heavy architecture in
mind.
> > Accessing dozens of files for a single page request is very quick. Out
of
> > 100 included files, you might notice a 10 ms increase than if you had
all
> > the code on the same page. Now that 10 ms performance hit gives you a
> > scalable, intelligible architecture. If you have any experience with
really
> > large sites, you know that the only safe way to scale a project is to
break
> > it into small "minute modules".
> >
> > All this is without mentioning CF's ability to cache templates
> > automatically. Accessing a file from RAM is basically instantaneous.
> >
> > If code scalability, readability, longevity, and understandability is
> > important now or will be important later, you need to adopt a structured
> > application methodology like Fusebox.
> >
> > Nat Papovich
> > ICQ 32676414
> > "I'm for truth no matter who tells it."
> > -Malcolm X, 1965
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Cyrill Vatomsky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2000 1:00 PM
> > To: CF-Talk
> > Subject: fusebox style: too much disk access?
> >
> > I was reading on the fusebox concept of putting minute modules into
separate
> > files and the question is: wouldn't that slow the site by having to
access
> > too many different disk files to load one page?
> >
> > Cyrill
> >
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists or send a message
with 'unsubscribe' in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
